Thailand needs to look overseas to see how other monarchies interact with their public in matters of debate and dissent.
In the UK, there is open debate and criticism of the British Monarchy, however the majority of British regard themselves as pro-royalist, even following crisies of faith such as the Death of Princess Diana the Monarchy survives and I believe it always will.
Debate, mockery, parody and sarcasm get directed at the Queen and her family by a few, and more often or not, though there is no legal penalty, the contempt and displeasure of other British people is enough to shame or hush those critics, or to make them accept that they seem to be a minority.
The British monarchy has ridden out many storms because it responds to the times, this is what the Thai monarchy must do as the king himself has said he should not be above criticism.
Lese Mageste seems nothing more than a ploy by elites and powerful to shush dissent, and what a tragedy cases like Akong’s are only damaging the image of a monarch who is not the one filing these corrupt charges.
I hope the Thai monarchy looks towards more open monarchies of places like Britain Japan and even Cambodia, to see where they can go right. The biggest act of lese mageste, and probably one charge that could be laid at those who bring charges, is that the King is seen are a mere object for bringing charges, I can think of no greater insult to such a noble man.
plan B obviously let it get to him. Poor chap can’t even rejoice in the events turning up the way he wanted i.e. the useless careless West to consider seriously lifting the sanctions as a quid pro quo pending the release of the rest of the political prisoners and dialogue with the KIO etc., and just because to his chagrin ASSK remains a major player on the Burmese political stage.
And if as aggadassavin said it took her 20 years to understand that politics is the art of compromise, it appears to be taking longer to realise that forging alliances and a united front may be a crucial step as in her father’s time, a lesson she might have learnt from 1988 over the fatal blunder in rejecting U Nu’s offer to form an interim government, that total commitment to non-violence would win you countless international accolades from both liberal doves and hawks but perhaps never the freedom that your people yearn for, and that your activities are necessarily proscribed and determined by the grace and whim of those in power who will plan the roadmap for ye who hath no faith in people power.
Tourist Authority Thailand doesn’t give a rat’s ass about people from the liberal democracies of UK, Europe, Australia and North America choosing to not visit Thailand for their holidays.
Tourist Authority Thailand’s Number One market these days is mainland China, 1 & 1/2 million year now I think. Number Two, India with over 750,000/year and growing, Number Three and the fastest growing and also highest spend rate per day by far market, single Islamic males from Iran and the Gulf Arab States who visit Thailand to engage in enormous amounts of non-stop sex with overweight Thai females and Thai ladyboys. Followed by Malaysia which sends hundred of thousands of males to the Hat Yai and the Far South every weekend for even more sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll, Russia, only 8 hours away and minus 30 degrees, and the old stalwarts, Korea and Japan.
And, trust me, none of the above groups devote a single brain cell to the political situation in Thailand, much less issues such as Freedom of Expression, Rule of Law, Justice System, Corruption, etc.
Heather, good for you. I used to say that I wouldn’t go to Burma until they released Aung Sang Su Chi and finally one day they released her. I went to Burma and had a great time. Just tourist stuff.
Start a movement, a tourist boycott of Thailand until Arkong is free.
I encourage you to write to your local newspaper editors and perhaps it can snowball into a movement.
Certainly this case is clearly a gross miscarage of justice.
An old man who no one can prove has ever sent an SMS is convicted because he cant prove he didn’t do it.
So Today a group of ultra-rightist Thai Royalists protested at the United States Embassy. Great. Express yourself.
My questions are in regards to the insults and threats that occurred on the U S Embassy Facebook page.
Do you expect the same treatment by the Thai Judicial System that was melted out to Joe Gordon and Uncle SMS?
Now granted Joe committed his alleged infraction against Thai Law while in the United States where he resided and is a citizen. Your offense according to Thai Law is insulting The American Ambassador and the obvious threat implied by showing her bloodied and decapitated body on the Embassy Facebook page. A result your groups claims because of the US State Department Criticism and her personal tweets expressing the view that the United States believes in freedom of speech and its disappointment over the sentence handed to Joe Gordon.
Joe by the way was utilizing his First Amendment Rights in American for allegedly commenting and translating portions of the book The King Never Smiles. He was not breaking local law where he lived. Unlike several members of your group that have broken local Thai laws– to wit the Computer Crimes Law (which admittedly should be used to go after things like pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, financial fruad, etc) but in topsy turvy Thailand are used against political opponents instead and Section 134 of the Criminal Code which deals with insults against accredited foreign representatives of which the US Ambassador is one.
Are you depending on Facebook and Twitter to not divulge the information to the Thai Government police authorities about the infractions? The same Facebook that you frequently want to shut down or block and censor?
Do you expect the US Embassy staff to act sensibly and just ignore and delete the expressions of your overzealous members or will they act like the Staff of the former Democrat PM Abhisit and copy, analyze, and trace each infraction and find the isp, the headings,the computer and the owners and users of said computers and prosecute and jail them unless they can prove that they couldn’t have done in as occured in the Uncle SMS case.
Will members be permitted bail or not?
Will the courts be in camera?
Will the honorable MP in charge of the MoI, seek to find and charge these members those charged with LM?
I wonder.
On another note, I wish to challenge my Senators from Colorado (and Joe’s too), Mr Udall and Mr Bennett, to come to Thailand and visit U S citizen prisoner Joe Gordon. Perhaps they could also visit some of the others touched by Article 112. Perhaps they can talk with the good ambassador and express support for our State Departments goal to end internet censorship and encourage Thailand to reform Article 112 in line with other modern constitutional monarchies as has the European Union.
And finally again.
Thailand,
Free Joe Gordon.
Free Uncle SMS.
Freedom is not freedom if it applies to only one half of the population.
I was part of a group of English travellers who were planning a trip to Thailand, as the commenter above notes, boycotts are setting in, from the western side, a group of 11 of us took the decision not to go to Thailand to protest at Amphon and the other lese mageste victims, treatment, we will not consider going until they are all released.
The case of Amphon is in the western media now and the whole lese mageste issue, we don’t have perfect democracy in the west, maybe the treatment of the likes of Julian Assange could even suggest there is some hypocrisy in condemning a nation over its human rights abuses when they go on everywhere, but this poor grand-dad has touched a raw nerve. People are just not going to head over there while they see cases like this and given Thailand’s dependence on tourists, this could become an economic as well as ethical dilemma.
Albert says: “The Sultan does not have the power to sack the Mentri Besar. He only has the power to appoint one”.
The Sultan DID NOT SACK the Menteri Besar. His Royal Highness ordered the Menteri Besar TO TENDER THE RESIGNATION of the Executive Council (which included himself) after he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. HRH’s action is in accordance with the provision in Article 16(6) of Perak State Constitution which states:
“If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he SHALL tender the resignation of the Executive Council”.
The matter would have been put to rest if Nizar, the former Menteri Besar, tendered his resignation as required by the Constitution. But he did not.
Albert says: “When Nizar did not command the majority of the house anymore, and his request to dissolve the Legislative Assembly was refused, the current Legislative Assembly should run as normal”
Albert’s assumption is clearly against the provision in Article 16(6) of the State Constitution. How could one assume that the “current LA should run as normal” whereas the Constitution requires the Executive Council to resign?
Albert also said “Then, a member of the house can advance a motion of no confidence against the Mentri Besar, and the house will decide on a new Mentri Besar. Nizar will be obligated to resign as the Mentri Besar (along with his Executive Council), and the newly-elected Mentri Besar will then inform the Sultan that he commands the majority of the house and get officially appointed as the Mentri Besar of Perak, along with an Executive Council of his choosing … My point stays that the current Mentri Besar can only be ousted by a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly. The Sultan has no power whatsoever in sacking the Mentri Besar”.
The issue is whether vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly is the only evidence to show that the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly? Should this is the intent of the Constitution, a provision to this effect would have been included in it. But it was not.
The Federal Court adopted the judgment of the Privy Council in Adegbenro v. Akintola’s [1963] 3 All ER 544 which states:
“It is said, too, that the ‘support’ that is to be considered is nothing else than support in the proceedings of the House itself, and with this proposition also their Lordships are in agreement. They do not think however, that this is in itself a very pregnant observation. No doubt, everything comes back in the end to the question what action the members of a part or a group or a combination are resolved to take in proceedings on the floor of the House; but in democratic politics, speeches or writings outside the House, party meetings, speeches or activities in the House short of actual voting are all capable of contributing evidence to indicate what action this or that member has decided to take when and if he is called upon to vote in the House, and it appears to their Lordship somewhat unreal to try to draw a firm dividing line between votes and other demonstrations where the issue of ‘support’ is concerned.”
Following Akintola, the Federal Court held that:
“… there is nothing in art. XVI(6) or in any other provisions of the State Constitution stipulating that the loss of confidence in the MB may only be established through a vote in the LA. As such, evidence of loss of confidence in the MB may be gathered from other extraneous sources provided, as stated in Akintola, they are properly established. Such sources, we think, should include the admission by the MB himself and/or representations made by members of the LA that the MB no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the members of the LA. In the present case, the Court of Appeal held that there was evidence of such admission by the appellant himself and what is beyond dispute is the demonstration of support by the 31 members of the LA for BN. Hence, giving BN a clear majority in the LA. All these clearly point to the loss of confidence of the majority of the members of the LA in the leadership of the appellant as the MB”.
I would add the following argument:
On hindsight, having vote of no confidence in the house to determine whether the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly would not evidence the true state of affairs in the house. As transpired in the Perak case, the former Speaker of the House, who is a DAP representative, hastily suspended seven BN representatives from the house, including Dr. Zambry, who was named as Menteri Besar by Barisan Nasional. Under such circumstances, the test of confidence on the floor of the house would be mockery.
I just want to point out a minor correction – the house itself does not vote on the Mentri Besar.
However, my point stays that the current Mentri Besar can only be ousted by a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly. The Sultan has no power whatsoever in sacking the Mentri Besar.
Zambry should have waited for Nizar to resign first before going to the Sultan to inform him that he commands the majority of the house.
It’s just that the following action by the Sultan to sack Nizar and appoint Zambry as the Mentri Besar while Nizar was still in office that was unconstitutional. The Sultan does not have the power to sack the Mentri Besar. He only has the power to appoint one.
This is what should have happened:
When Nizar did not command the majority of the house anymore, and his request to dissolve the Legislative Assembly was refused, the current Legislative Assembly should run as normal.
Then, a member of the house can advance a motion of no confidence against the Mentri Besar, and the house will decide on a new Mentri Besar. Nizar will be obligated to resign as the Mentri Besar (along with his Executive Council), and the newly-elected Mentri Besar will then inform the Sultan that he commands the majority of the house and get officially appointed as the Mentri Besar of Perak, along with an Executive Council of his choosing.
What you see here is the inevitable result of an “education” system that restricts the student to narrow dogma, demands compliance, and suppresses critical thinking. The authors are not really to blame – the formulation of independent and objective ideas is beyond their capability.
I would place far more creedence on the wise observations of an experienced old buffalo …
Many Thais, perhaps the majority, divide the world into two groups – Thai and non-Thai. Interestingly nearly everything that Thais regard as most precious come from the non-Thai group.
More evidence that UMNO is creating a situation of internal insecurity in Malaysia to retain power.
Former senior police officer Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim today berated Datuk Seri Najib Razak for allegedly “misusing” the country’s religious authorities to create false fear over threats by non-Muslims against Islam and the Malay rulers.
He told the prime minister in an email released to the media that such threats only come from the Malays and Muslims themselves, adding that he has “never experienced or known of” situations where the non-Malays came together to conspire against anyone.
Malaysia continues its onward march towards becoming a basket case by 2020.
Malaysia lost RM150 billion in illicit outflows in 2009, the fourth highest in the developing world, says US-based watchdog Global Financial Integrity (GFI).
No one could have known that when a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire in a public square, it would incite protests that would topple dictators and start a global wave of dissent. In 2011, protesters didn’t just voice their complaints; they changed the world.
Greg raised an interesting point about the morality of party hopping. Yes, we all share at least a common understanding of what is moral and what is not, though we can also find that what is moral in a value system may not be regarded as moral in other value systems.
Greg is also correct in saying that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Indeed there is a long debate over law and morality. For example, a stranger who watched idly a young girl drowning in a pond without doing anything to save the girl’s life will not be held accountable in law. There is nothing illegal about it, unless he owes a legal duty to save the girl’s life. But anyone with the right frame of mind will say that his action is immoral. I will say the same.
I do not intend to put anyone or any party to moral scrutiny in politics or in law. More often than not, what is moral or immoral in the discourse about politics is hard to define. In the case of party hopping, we may say that it is immoral to do so if the party hopper is an elected lawmaker. But a lawmaker who switches side may also say that it is immoral for anyone to deprive him of the right to freedom of association. So, we can argue about this until cow comes home, but we will never reach an agreement on this ‘moral’ issue.
In the case of ‘party hopping’ in Perak, there is now a long list of literatures on the legal tussle between the former Menteri Besar from Pakatan and the current one from Barisan Nasional. I do not intend to add anything further on the existing body of literature.
However, for the purpose of brevity, suffice to say that under the state constitution, the Sultan of Perak has discretion to decide on two things: i) the appointment of Menteri Besar; and (ii) the withholding of consent to a request for dissolution of legislative assembly. Based on this constitutional provision, it is crystal clear that when the Sultan refused to give his consent to the request by the former Menteri Besar for dissolution of state legislative assembly, His Royal Highness acted within the confine of the law and the Constitution. So, when Greg said that the refusal is “extra-constitutional and outright illegal”, I do not know what he means. He must know better than me what he meant by what he said.
Furthermore, the Federal Court, which is the highest court in Malaysia and the same court that released Anwar Ibrahim from prison, held that the Sultan had acted correctly in refusing to give his consent to the request for dissolution of the legislative assembly and that the appointment of the new Menteri Besar from Barisan Nasional is legal. For record, the Sultan of Perak was the former Lord President of Malaysia. I have nothing more to say…
[…] information at 2 places, but not at the other three. Professor Somsak of Thammasat University in a comment at New Mandala: Yesterday, police visited a home of a blogger with a search warrant. His fate is […]
Somsak #21- my point is the police do not have any option in the case of LM because it is too risky for them to “bury it” and have to let the process continue all the way to the courts. It is up to the courts/judiciary to take the next dreaded step. The fear among police and all low level actors is from the amaat NOT the GOVT. Turning attention and blame on the GOVT (any GOVT) is irrelevant given the way so-called independent bodies have been set up…
Political activist Daranee said after hearing the verdict that there was no point in fighting on under such circumstances.
“If they forgive, I’ll also forgive, so our country can continue to prosper,” she said before the verdict. A few sympathisers gathered at the court in a show of solidarity.
Somsak didn’t respond to my question at #12, but I suspect I have something of an answer when the newspapers report that both the Democrat Party and the Lawyers’ Council of Thailand have continued to accuse the current government of failing, with the latter calling for more drastic action and the former complaining that “people” are making complaints and the government (presumably police) aren’t getting out and arresting more people.
The spiral downwards is more rapid than expected and there seems no way to stop it. Is that, however, an indication that the system is about to collapse in on itself, bringing the whole edifice crashing down or is it a descent into unimaginable authoritarianism?
It seems to me that opposition to the repression associated with lese majeste is now only for the very brave.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
Thailand needs to look overseas to see how other monarchies interact with their public in matters of debate and dissent.
In the UK, there is open debate and criticism of the British Monarchy, however the majority of British regard themselves as pro-royalist, even following crisies of faith such as the Death of Princess Diana the Monarchy survives and I believe it always will.
Debate, mockery, parody and sarcasm get directed at the Queen and her family by a few, and more often or not, though there is no legal penalty, the contempt and displeasure of other British people is enough to shame or hush those critics, or to make them accept that they seem to be a minority.
The British monarchy has ridden out many storms because it responds to the times, this is what the Thai monarchy must do as the king himself has said he should not be above criticism.
Lese Mageste seems nothing more than a ploy by elites and powerful to shush dissent, and what a tragedy cases like Akong’s are only damaging the image of a monarch who is not the one filing these corrupt charges.
I hope the Thai monarchy looks towards more open monarchies of places like Britain Japan and even Cambodia, to see where they can go right. The biggest act of lese mageste, and probably one charge that could be laid at those who bring charges, is that the King is seen are a mere object for bringing charges, I can think of no greater insult to such a noble man.
An unlikely encounter
plan B obviously let it get to him. Poor chap can’t even rejoice in the events turning up the way he wanted i.e. the useless careless West to consider seriously lifting the sanctions as a quid pro quo pending the release of the rest of the political prisoners and dialogue with the KIO etc., and just because to his chagrin ASSK remains a major player on the Burmese political stage.
And if as aggadassavin said it took her 20 years to understand that politics is the art of compromise, it appears to be taking longer to realise that forging alliances and a united front may be a crucial step as in her father’s time, a lesson she might have learnt from 1988 over the fatal blunder in rejecting U Nu’s offer to form an interim government, that total commitment to non-violence would win you countless international accolades from both liberal doves and hawks but perhaps never the freedom that your people yearn for, and that your activities are necessarily proscribed and determined by the grace and whim of those in power who will plan the roadmap for ye who hath no faith in people power.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
I am boycotting Thai holidays, maybe we need a facebook page for it
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
Tourist Authority Thailand doesn’t give a rat’s ass about people from the liberal democracies of UK, Europe, Australia and North America choosing to not visit Thailand for their holidays.
Tourist Authority Thailand’s Number One market these days is mainland China, 1 & 1/2 million year now I think. Number Two, India with over 750,000/year and growing, Number Three and the fastest growing and also highest spend rate per day by far market, single Islamic males from Iran and the Gulf Arab States who visit Thailand to engage in enormous amounts of non-stop sex with overweight Thai females and Thai ladyboys. Followed by Malaysia which sends hundred of thousands of males to the Hat Yai and the Far South every weekend for even more sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll, Russia, only 8 hours away and minus 30 degrees, and the old stalwarts, Korea and Japan.
And, trust me, none of the above groups devote a single brain cell to the political situation in Thailand, much less issues such as Freedom of Expression, Rule of Law, Justice System, Corruption, etc.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
Heather, good for you. I used to say that I wouldn’t go to Burma until they released Aung Sang Su Chi and finally one day they released her. I went to Burma and had a great time. Just tourist stuff.
Start a movement, a tourist boycott of Thailand until Arkong is free.
I encourage you to write to your local newspaper editors and perhaps it can snowball into a movement.
Certainly this case is clearly a gross miscarage of justice.
An old man who no one can prove has ever sent an SMS is convicted because he cant prove he didn’t do it.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
So Today a group of ultra-rightist Thai Royalists protested at the United States Embassy. Great. Express yourself.
My questions are in regards to the insults and threats that occurred on the U S Embassy Facebook page.
Do you expect the same treatment by the Thai Judicial System that was melted out to Joe Gordon and Uncle SMS?
Now granted Joe committed his alleged infraction against Thai Law while in the United States where he resided and is a citizen. Your offense according to Thai Law is insulting The American Ambassador and the obvious threat implied by showing her bloodied and decapitated body on the Embassy Facebook page. A result your groups claims because of the US State Department Criticism and her personal tweets expressing the view that the United States believes in freedom of speech and its disappointment over the sentence handed to Joe Gordon.
Joe by the way was utilizing his First Amendment Rights in American for allegedly commenting and translating portions of the book The King Never Smiles. He was not breaking local law where he lived. Unlike several members of your group that have broken local Thai laws– to wit the Computer Crimes Law (which admittedly should be used to go after things like pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, financial fruad, etc) but in topsy turvy Thailand are used against political opponents instead and Section 134 of the Criminal Code which deals with insults against accredited foreign representatives of which the US Ambassador is one.
Are you depending on Facebook and Twitter to not divulge the information to the Thai Government police authorities about the infractions? The same Facebook that you frequently want to shut down or block and censor?
Do you expect the US Embassy staff to act sensibly and just ignore and delete the expressions of your overzealous members or will they act like the Staff of the former Democrat PM Abhisit and copy, analyze, and trace each infraction and find the isp, the headings,the computer and the owners and users of said computers and prosecute and jail them unless they can prove that they couldn’t have done in as occured in the Uncle SMS case.
Will members be permitted bail or not?
Will the courts be in camera?
Will the honorable MP in charge of the MoI, seek to find and charge these members those charged with LM?
I wonder.
On another note, I wish to challenge my Senators from Colorado (and Joe’s too), Mr Udall and Mr Bennett, to come to Thailand and visit U S citizen prisoner Joe Gordon. Perhaps they could also visit some of the others touched by Article 112. Perhaps they can talk with the good ambassador and express support for our State Departments goal to end internet censorship and encourage Thailand to reform Article 112 in line with other modern constitutional monarchies as has the European Union.
And finally again.
Thailand,
Free Joe Gordon.
Free Uncle SMS.
Freedom is not freedom if it applies to only one half of the population.
Thailand’s latest lese majeste disgrace
I was part of a group of English travellers who were planning a trip to Thailand, as the commenter above notes, boycotts are setting in, from the western side, a group of 11 of us took the decision not to go to Thailand to protest at Amphon and the other lese mageste victims, treatment, we will not consider going until they are all released.
The case of Amphon is in the western media now and the whole lese mageste issue, we don’t have perfect democracy in the west, maybe the treatment of the likes of Julian Assange could even suggest there is some hypocrisy in condemning a nation over its human rights abuses when they go on everywhere, but this poor grand-dad has touched a raw nerve. People are just not going to head over there while they see cases like this and given Thailand’s dependence on tourists, this could become an economic as well as ethical dilemma.
Will UMNO give up power?
Albert says: “The Sultan does not have the power to sack the Mentri Besar. He only has the power to appoint one”.
The Sultan DID NOT SACK the Menteri Besar. His Royal Highness ordered the Menteri Besar TO TENDER THE RESIGNATION of the Executive Council (which included himself) after he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. HRH’s action is in accordance with the provision in Article 16(6) of Perak State Constitution which states:
“If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he SHALL tender the resignation of the Executive Council”.
The matter would have been put to rest if Nizar, the former Menteri Besar, tendered his resignation as required by the Constitution. But he did not.
Albert says: “When Nizar did not command the majority of the house anymore, and his request to dissolve the Legislative Assembly was refused, the current Legislative Assembly should run as normal”
Albert’s assumption is clearly against the provision in Article 16(6) of the State Constitution. How could one assume that the “current LA should run as normal” whereas the Constitution requires the Executive Council to resign?
Albert also said “Then, a member of the house can advance a motion of no confidence against the Mentri Besar, and the house will decide on a new Mentri Besar. Nizar will be obligated to resign as the Mentri Besar (along with his Executive Council), and the newly-elected Mentri Besar will then inform the Sultan that he commands the majority of the house and get officially appointed as the Mentri Besar of Perak, along with an Executive Council of his choosing … My point stays that the current Mentri Besar can only be ousted by a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly. The Sultan has no power whatsoever in sacking the Mentri Besar”.
The issue is whether vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly is the only evidence to show that the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly? Should this is the intent of the Constitution, a provision to this effect would have been included in it. But it was not.
The Federal Court adopted the judgment of the Privy Council in Adegbenro v. Akintola’s [1963] 3 All ER 544 which states:
“It is said, too, that the ‘support’ that is to be considered is nothing else than support in the proceedings of the House itself, and with this proposition also their Lordships are in agreement. They do not think however, that this is in itself a very pregnant observation. No doubt, everything comes back in the end to the question what action the members of a part or a group or a combination are resolved to take in proceedings on the floor of the House; but in democratic politics, speeches or writings outside the House, party meetings, speeches or activities in the House short of actual voting are all capable of contributing evidence to indicate what action this or that member has decided to take when and if he is called upon to vote in the House, and it appears to their Lordship somewhat unreal to try to draw a firm dividing line between votes and other demonstrations where the issue of ‘support’ is concerned.”
Following Akintola, the Federal Court held that:
“… there is nothing in art. XVI(6) or in any other provisions of the State Constitution stipulating that the loss of confidence in the MB may only be established through a vote in the LA. As such, evidence of loss of confidence in the MB may be gathered from other extraneous sources provided, as stated in Akintola, they are properly established. Such sources, we think, should include the admission by the MB himself and/or representations made by members of the LA that the MB no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the members of the LA. In the present case, the Court of Appeal held that there was evidence of such admission by the appellant himself and what is beyond dispute is the demonstration of support by the 31 members of the LA for BN. Hence, giving BN a clear majority in the LA. All these clearly point to the loss of confidence of the majority of the members of the LA in the leadership of the appellant as the MB”.
I would add the following argument:
On hindsight, having vote of no confidence in the house to determine whether the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly would not evidence the true state of affairs in the house. As transpired in the Perak case, the former Speaker of the House, who is a DAP representative, hastily suspended seven BN representatives from the house, including Dr. Zambry, who was named as Menteri Besar by Barisan Nasional. Under such circumstances, the test of confidence on the floor of the house would be mockery.
Will UMNO give up power?
I just want to point out a minor correction – the house itself does not vote on the Mentri Besar.
However, my point stays that the current Mentri Besar can only be ousted by a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly. The Sultan has no power whatsoever in sacking the Mentri Besar.
Zambry should have waited for Nizar to resign first before going to the Sultan to inform him that he commands the majority of the house.
Will UMNO give up power?
The refusal was fine.
It’s just that the following action by the Sultan to sack Nizar and appoint Zambry as the Mentri Besar while Nizar was still in office that was unconstitutional. The Sultan does not have the power to sack the Mentri Besar. He only has the power to appoint one.
This is what should have happened:
When Nizar did not command the majority of the house anymore, and his request to dissolve the Legislative Assembly was refused, the current Legislative Assembly should run as normal.
Then, a member of the house can advance a motion of no confidence against the Mentri Besar, and the house will decide on a new Mentri Besar. Nizar will be obligated to resign as the Mentri Besar (along with his Executive Council), and the newly-elected Mentri Besar will then inform the Sultan that he commands the majority of the house and get officially appointed as the Mentri Besar of Perak, along with an Executive Council of his choosing.
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
What you see here is the inevitable result of an “education” system that restricts the student to narrow dogma, demands compliance, and suppresses critical thinking. The authors are not really to blame – the formulation of independent and objective ideas is beyond their capability.
I would place far more creedence on the wise observations of an experienced old buffalo …
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
Many Thais, perhaps the majority, divide the world into two groups – Thai and non-Thai. Interestingly nearly everything that Thais regard as most precious come from the non-Thai group.
Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Blackberry, iPhone, Gucci, Burberry, Rolex, Prada…
Internal insecurity – UMNO’s strategy?
More evidence that UMNO is creating a situation of internal insecurity in Malaysia to retain power.
Malaysia a failed state – The writings are on the wall?
Malaysia continues its onward march towards becoming a basket case by 2020.
Another academic victim of 112
Tom Hoy #20
No one could have known that when a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire in a public square, it would incite protests that would topple dictators and start a global wave of dissent. In 2011, protesters didn’t just voice their complaints; they changed the world.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102132,00.html
Will UMNO give up power?
Greg raised an interesting point about the morality of party hopping. Yes, we all share at least a common understanding of what is moral and what is not, though we can also find that what is moral in a value system may not be regarded as moral in other value systems.
Greg is also correct in saying that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Indeed there is a long debate over law and morality. For example, a stranger who watched idly a young girl drowning in a pond without doing anything to save the girl’s life will not be held accountable in law. There is nothing illegal about it, unless he owes a legal duty to save the girl’s life. But anyone with the right frame of mind will say that his action is immoral. I will say the same.
I do not intend to put anyone or any party to moral scrutiny in politics or in law. More often than not, what is moral or immoral in the discourse about politics is hard to define. In the case of party hopping, we may say that it is immoral to do so if the party hopper is an elected lawmaker. But a lawmaker who switches side may also say that it is immoral for anyone to deprive him of the right to freedom of association. So, we can argue about this until cow comes home, but we will never reach an agreement on this ‘moral’ issue.
In the case of ‘party hopping’ in Perak, there is now a long list of literatures on the legal tussle between the former Menteri Besar from Pakatan and the current one from Barisan Nasional. I do not intend to add anything further on the existing body of literature.
However, for the purpose of brevity, suffice to say that under the state constitution, the Sultan of Perak has discretion to decide on two things: i) the appointment of Menteri Besar; and (ii) the withholding of consent to a request for dissolution of legislative assembly. Based on this constitutional provision, it is crystal clear that when the Sultan refused to give his consent to the request by the former Menteri Besar for dissolution of state legislative assembly, His Royal Highness acted within the confine of the law and the Constitution. So, when Greg said that the refusal is “extra-constitutional and outright illegal”, I do not know what he means. He must know better than me what he meant by what he said.
Furthermore, the Federal Court, which is the highest court in Malaysia and the same court that released Anwar Ibrahim from prison, held that the Sultan had acted correctly in refusing to give his consent to the request for dissolution of the legislative assembly and that the appointment of the new Menteri Besar from Barisan Nasional is legal. For record, the Sultan of Perak was the former Lord President of Malaysia. I have nothing more to say…
Another academic victim of 112
[…] information at 2 places, but not at the other three. Professor Somsak of Thammasat University in a comment at New Mandala: Yesterday, police visited a home of a blogger with a search warrant. His fate is […]
Another academic victim of 112
Somsak #21- my point is the police do not have any option in the case of LM because it is too risky for them to “bury it” and have to let the process continue all the way to the courts. It is up to the courts/judiciary to take the next dreaded step. The fear among police and all low level actors is from the amaat NOT the GOVT. Turning attention and blame on the GOVT (any GOVT) is irrelevant given the way so-called independent bodies have been set up…
Court win for Da Torpedo
Da Torpedo sentenced to 15 years.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/270923/da-torpedo-sentenced-to-15-years
Political activist Daranee said after hearing the verdict that there was no point in fighting on under such circumstances.
“If they forgive, I’ll also forgive, so our country can continue to prosper,” she said before the verdict. A few sympathisers gathered at the court in a show of solidarity.
Another academic victim of 112
Somsak didn’t respond to my question at #12, but I suspect I have something of an answer when the newspapers report that both the Democrat Party and the Lawyers’ Council of Thailand have continued to accuse the current government of failing, with the latter calling for more drastic action and the former complaining that “people” are making complaints and the government (presumably police) aren’t getting out and arresting more people.
The spiral downwards is more rapid than expected and there seems no way to stop it. Is that, however, an indication that the system is about to collapse in on itself, bringing the whole edifice crashing down or is it a descent into unimaginable authoritarianism?
It seems to me that opposition to the repression associated with lese majeste is now only for the very brave.